- Jun 4, 2013
- 10,132
- 996
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
Yah well get him here and let’s see if he can be honest.....
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yah well get him here and let’s see if he can be honest.....What baffles me is that he is probably aware that one of the people that actually worked on sequencing the chimp genome as well as the paper, posts in this very forum.
It's like he has no shame whatsoever. In his place, I'ld be a bit more reserved in making such wild claims, while knowing that that person might actually read it and hand me my own behind on a golden plate.
How arrogant must one be as a random internet forum poster, with no scientific credentials whatsoever, to tell one of the team members of the chimp genome project, that he has no clue what he is doing and that his conclusions are completely incorrect?
I'm not really sure. But it sure is a level of arrogance that I don't encounter in real life....
That’s exactly what you said...Why's that a problem? It's better to be open minded and receptive to evidence than to reject evidence out of hand because of dogmatic beliefs. That's your problem, not mine mate.
Besides it's one paper about ape genome comparison, if it was found to be "fantasy" or whatever you called it wouldn't be earth shattering news would it. Common descent would still be corroborated by multiple lines of evidence.
Yes it is. Unfortunately you don't know where it's applicable - because I never made such an argument. Clueless as usual.
That's not what I said. While you're on wikipedia looking up logical fallacies check out what a "straw man" is.
1. I know, mutation has little to do with it...Even creationist Walter ReMine acknowledged that neutral mutations can affect phenotype. As has been explained to you in this thread already, neutral refers to fitness, that is, these mutation neither increase nor decrease fitness. They may well do nothing at all, but they can also alter phenotype, albeit in such a way so as to not affect fitness.
This will be fun - yes, please pay attention...
1. It is not the accumulation of mutations in and of itself that imply divergence.
2. Do YOU not assume that the created Kinds produced 'sub-kinds' over time,and that these 'sub-kinds' would be similar to the parental Kinds? You are arguing against your own beliefs, as is often the case, and do not see it.
3. I have presented a series of abstracts on this forum more than a dozen times that demonstrate the accuracy of using DNA analysis for inferring ancestor-descendant relationships. Neither you nor any other creationists has ever even tried to deal with that in a rational, scientific way.
No change is no change.Relevance?
No, as mutations degrade the genome less variability is available for breeding to work with. That’s why they have all but abandoned mutation in plant and animal husbandry...So you are saying that as mutations accumulate, things get MORE similar?
Says the person that thinks a genome today contains millions of years of history. When if a mutation were to change something, what it was before would be impossible to deduce being the change was random....Illogic on top of naive folk genetics.
I know, there is no evidence there is any...Hint - there IS NO 1-to-1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MUTATIONS AND PHENOTYPE.
Pity you keep having to refer to millions of years because nothing in reality supports your claims......The accumulation of neutral mutations is informative for various reasons, but phylogenetic analyses are NOT done to assess morphological changes.
Please read up on these subjects?
Misrepresentation due to ignorance.
What does that even mean?
Actually, some interesting experiments have indicated that beneficial mutations occur much more commonly that previously believed, but whatever. Your basic premise is flawed, so just another error won't really matter.
Laughably erroneous.
More naive folk genetics.
Pity that one of the side-effects of the the Dunning-Kruger effect is that those under its spell lack the ability to grasp how wrong they are.
That’s exactly what you said...
“Meh, I take it at face value, it makes no real difference to me whether they're correct or not.”
You don’t care if they are correct or not as long as it’s the popular opinion......
You said what you really meant, don’t try to double talk your way out of it....
Sad, sad, sad that all some people care about is if what they belief is the popular opinion and could care less if that opinion is actually true or not.
No, as mutations degrade the genome less variability is available for breeding to work with. That’s why they have all but abandoned mutation in plant and animal husbandry...
Yah well get him here and let’s see if he can be honest.....
Wauw. Pre-emptive accusation of dishonesty. Awesome.
Agreed - sometimes, one has to do an awful lot of digging to find 'proof' of the flaws of creationist claims - this fellow? One need only read his own links or his previous couple of posts to spot the contradictions, misinterpretations, misrepresentations, etc...He's a real poster boy for creationism, I'd put him on ignore but it can be amusing to see what gems he comes up with.
Dude?Evidence please.
Otherwise, that is just a - what was your new slogan? - ah yes - bald faced claim.
False.
What is your evidence that these are increasing in number, as opposed to our being able to detect them more readily?
And as an aside - what do you think of your deity for 'cursing' us all with this terminal extinction-level 'illness' of mutation?
So precious.... Those keyword-search pontifications do not go so well for you, champ...
When will you learn?
So precious...
I especially like the cherry-picked quotes - weird how keen the creationist can be with that skill - searching out quotes or snippets that might appear to support their cause, even as they gloss over and ignore quotes like this:
These tests can identify related individuals who share a common maternal or paternal ancestor, and even where in the world people with your genetic signature live today. A common misconception about genetic ancestry testing, Bolnick said, is that it can reveal information about an individual's ancestry.
....
One problem with this approach, scientists say, is that because such tests analyze less than 1 percent of a person's genome, they will miss most of a person's relatives....
Your entire premise on this issue is akin to the claims of creationists when it comes to radiometric dating, and how they will point out the "errors" one gets when one tries to use Carbon dating for something 10 millions years old, then proclaim all such dating is in error.
A couple errors in your argument, off the top of my head:
1. Ancestry DNA tests are searching WITHIN a single species, phylogenetic analyses are looking at relationships between species. Look at the difference this way - you have a big jar full of marbles of different sizes and colors. You want to find all of the marbles of a particular size, so you make a sieve, dump all of the marbles through it, and now you have all of the marbles of one size, and all of the marbles of other sizes. All of the same-sized marbles are of several different colors, so you sort out all of the blue ones. That is like what these ancestry tests do - they sort out the blue ones from the other colors, but they cannot identify one specific blue marble.
Separating marbles by size is like what is done with phylogeny analyses. You are making a fallacious extrapolation.
2. You conflate these ancestry tests inability to identify a specific lineage or a specific ancestor with an analytical system that has never had such a goal.
Phylogenetic analyses are not looking for specific ancestors, they are looking for groupings.
3. Erroneous implications by you cannot negate tested methodologies:
I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:
The tested methodology:
Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558
Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.
======================
Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592
Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny
DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.
==================================
Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677
Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies
DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.
We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.
Application of the tested methodology:
Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo
"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "
Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny
"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."
A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates
"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "
Yeah, so, under pressure from a couple of my siblings, I did one of these ancestry DNA deals, along with my kids and wife. Darned if these "scams" did not 'predict' that my kids were in fact my kids with a high degree of confidence! Based only on a relatively small sample of genomic DNA... Seems to contradict one of the local non-scientist YEC's claims...
Hey genius, please explain how it is possible to link 2 people's DNA without a sample of each.I'm sure, since you gave both DNA.
I'm sure, since you gave both DNA. Strawman to the extreme..... and completely tries to avoid and misdirect from my claim....
Now if you had the DNA of the claimed "missing" common ancestor to compare it to..... So claims of past relations millions of years ago....
Did that DNA tell you that you were related to someone just 4,000 years ago? Well did it? and do you believe it actually could?
If you do your deluding yourself.....
A test like that would show you were NOT related to a monkey.....
It's only when they snip genomes apart, take out what doesn't fit, realign things so they do, that similarity is claimed. Not on an actual DNA test, but just in aligned code after they cut it all up and made it fit. An actual DNA test as each stands as it is would show you are anything but related....
So you all claim...... but yet real scientists admit that hereditary tests to trace ancestry is a scam, that all it can really tell you is where that genome type exists today.
False.This is because any mutation or change to the genome makes tracing it backwards impossible before the mutation occurred. Without an original unmutated genome, it’s all guesswork and fantasy....
We aren’t doing great. We have more inherent genetic diseases year by year....
Human genetic disease
“With the increasing ability to control infectious and nutritional diseases in developed countries, there has come the realization that genetic diseases are a major cause of disability, death, and human tragedy. Rare, indeed, is the family that is entirely free of any known genetic disorder. ”
“About 1 out of 150 live newborns has a detectable chromosomal abnormality. Yet even this high incidence represents only a small fraction of chromosome mutations since the vast majority are lethal and result in prenatal death or stillbirth. Indeed, 50 percent of all first-trimester miscarriagesand 20 percent of all second-trimester miscarriages are estimated to involve a chromosomally abnormal fetus.”
Sure genius, as soon as you tell us how we postulate a “missing” common ancestor from “missing” DNA?Hey genius, please explain how it is possible to link 2 people's DNA without a sample of each.
Sure genius, as soon as you tell us how we postulate a “missing” common ancestor from “missing” DNA?
How do you link then when there exists no comparison DNA to compare? Assumption and want-it-to-be-so?
But then you don’t remove 1/3 of those peoples DNA, snip it and rearrange it when you compare them, now do you....
Remove 1/3 of the DNA, snip it apart and rearrange it and you could claim anybody was related to anybody.... wouldn’t matter if they were or not.
Sure genius, as soon as you tell us how we postulate a “missing” common ancestor from “missing” DNA?
See above.How do you link then when there exists no comparison DNA to compare? Assumption and want-it-to-be-so?
If only that was how it all worked...But then you don’t remove 1/3 of those peoples DNA, snip it and rearrange it when you compare them, now do you....
Remove 1/3 of the DNA, snip it apart and rearrange it and you could claim anybody was related to anybody.... wouldn’t matter if they were or not.
Others have done that for you. So now it's time for you to explain. This should be good.....Sure genius, as soon as you tell us how we postulate a “missing” common ancestor from “missing” DNA?
That's what you promised to explain to us. I'm really looking forward to your detailed explanation. You do have an explanation, right? This isn't just another of your ignorant, baseless claims, is it?How do you link then when there exists no comparison DNA to compare? Assumption and want-it-to-be-so?
That’s just it. Since mutations are random, and affect things randomly, you can’t work backwards. At every single mutation point what was before is no longer able to be known.By comparing the DNA of the extant descendants, Zweistein.
If both your parents die in a plane crash and any and all DNA evidence gets lost for some reason, geneticists will still very much be able to determine that you and your brother/sister are siblings, just by comparing your DNA.
In fact, you can give them hundreds, thousands of random anonymous samples and they'll have no problem picking out yours and the DNA of your siblings and conclude that those are the samples of siblings. Or cousins. Or more distant cousins.
In fact, they'll be able to give you a relatively accurate estimate about how many generations ago you share an ancestor.
This is literally what the Genographic Project (google it) is all about, by the way.
No. You compare the DNA of extant organisms and work your way back from there.
That’s just it. Since mutations are random, and affect things randomly, you can’t work backwards.
And no, you can’t trace ancestors back.
All tests can do is tell you where those that share similar DNA live “today”.
They can’t tell you how long ago you share an ancestor without DNA from that ancestor....
All they can do is tell you that you share 14% similarities with this region, 18% with that one, etc.
You all are so full of misconceptions from their stories you don’t even know what reality is any longer....
Please take your PR nonsense elsewhere.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?